I'm not a great photographer, but one tip I've picked up that has been invaluable is that flashes should be used very sparingly, even in low light. I hate the way flash pictures look, and I wish people would just lay off the flashes and learn to take better pictures without them.
I recently spoke with the Scottish photojournalist Harry Benson, who is known for his images of world leaders, Hollywood icons, rock stars and everyday Glaswegians. (He is, as I found out, also an amiable character and a charming raconteur.) Mr. Benson’s photos, particularly his early black-and-white images, are masterly studies in the use of natural light, and I wanted to ask him for tips on shooting in low-light situations. Here’s what he had to say. ...Any tips on using flash in low light?
I prefer not to use flash because it tends to control and take over the photo. I lose a lot of humanity with flash. I don’t want to use it in a position when I can use my brain instead. Without flash, pictures can take on a grainy feel. And if you take a photo of someone with a light in the background, the light gives a lovely warm tone to the photography. ...
If you had one tip for taking better night or low-light photos, what would it be?
Don’t be afraid. You’ll be surprised just how good your photos will be. Make sure there is some light on your subject’s face. But be brave about it. The thing about is that I’ve been awakened to see just what digital cameras can do in low-light situations. It digs right into spaces that I never thought a camera could penetrate.
Amen! Please turn your auto-flash off.
(HT: Lifehacker.)
Hmmm. I strongly agree that a good natural-light photo almost always looks better than a picture taken with a flash. But I disagree that digital cameras make that possible in general. In low light, you have to crank up the ISO and/or slow down the shutter speed (or let the camera do it for you) by a huge factor (e.g. typically ISO400 and shutter speeds around 1/10 of a second). Most non-SLR digital cameras become _very_ grainy when the ISO goes up above the minimum (even as low as 400), and most people's pictures look very blurry at slow shutter speeds because of how hands shake (and because the subjects move). A fast lens, some noise reduction, and good image stabilization only go so far. Realistically, if you don't have an SLR, the flash is often necessary, unless you don't mind a heck of a lot of motion blur and a heck of a lot of noisy grain. Only SLRs have large enough sensors (and thus, low noise at high ISOs) to overcome these problems.
Sure, people should learn how to hold their cameras steady, since in low light the flash won't help if your subject is more than 10 or 20 feet away. But even then, you often have to deal with subject motion and a lot of noisy grain.
There are two digital cameras out there with super-fast (f2.0 or so) lenses, and relatively large sensors with relatively few pixels, making for relatively little high-iso noise ("relatively" when compared with other non-SLR digicams), the Canon S90 and the Panasonic LX3. I own one of them and have had a chance to play with the other. Even though they have everything that would make a camera take decent natural-light pictures in low-light, their results are still closer to a regular compact digicam than to any SLR. In short, the noise is still very high. Sure, I still use the cameras in situations where some pictures are desirable and are better than no pictures at all (and when bringing the 5D isn't practical), but I don't expect that the pictures will look great.
Here are a couple of albums taken with a non-SLR digicam using only natural light in low-light. And this is a digicam with an f2.0 lens and a relatively large (low-noise) sensor. Even when shrunken to only 600 pixels across, the pictures look not-so-great. (And if I may be immodest for a second, my skills at holding a camera steady and at picking the right ISO are above average).
facebook.com/album.php?aid=2183317&id=203796&l=f8d6c9c6d4
facebook.com/album.php?aid=2175908&id=203796&l=196577428c